Prior consistent statements and prior inconsistent statements

Evidence
Part of the common law series
Types of evidence
Testimony Documentary Real (physical) Digital Exculpatory Inculpatory Demonstrative Eyewitness identification Genetic (DNA) Lies
Relevance
Burden of proof Laying a foundation Materiality Public policy exclusions Spoliation Character Habit Similar fact
Authentication
Chain of custody Judicial notice Best evidence rule Self-authenticating document Ancient document Hague Evidence Convention
Witnesses
Competence Privilege Direct examination Cross-examination Redirect Impeachment Recorded recollection Expert witness Dead Man's Statute
Hearsay and exceptions
in English law in United States law Confessions Business records Excited utterance Dying declaration Party admission Ancient document Declaration against interest Present sense impression Res gestae Learned treatise Implied assertion
Other common law areas
Contract Tort Property Wills, trusts and estates Criminal law

Prior consistent statements and prior inconsistent statements, in the law of evidence, occur where a witness, testifying at trial, makes a statement that is either consistent or inconsistent, respectively, with a previous statement given at an earlier time such as during a discovery, interview, or interrogation. The examiner can impeach the witness when an inconsistent statement is found, and may conversely bolster the credibility of an impeached witness with a prior consistent statement.

Impeachment with a prior inconsistent statement

Before the witness can be impeached the examiner must have extrinsic evidence of the prior statement. The examiner must also provide the witness with the opportunity to adopt or reject the previous statement. ^[1]

In the majority of U.S. jurisdictions, prior inconsistent statements may not be introduced to prove the truth of the prior statement itself, as this constitutes hearsay, but only to impeach the credibility of the witness.

However, under Federal Rule of Evidence 801 and the minority of U.S. jurisdictions that have adopted this rule, a prior inconsistent statement may be introduced as evidence of the truth of the statement itself if the prior statement was given in live testimony and under oath as part of a formal hearing, proceeding, trial, or deposition.^[2]

Note that under California Evidence Code ("CEC") §§769, 770, and 1235, prior inconsistent statements may be used for both impeachment and as substantive evidence, even if they were not originally made under oath at a formal proceeding, as long as "the witness was so examined while testifying as to give him an opportunity to explain or to deny the statement."^[3]

Bolstering with a prior consistent statement

Prior consistent statements

A prior consistent statement is not a hearsay exception, the FRE specifically define it as non hearsay. A prior consistent statement is admissible:

to rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated a statement, for instance, during her testimony at trial;
the witness testifies at the present trial; and
the witness is subject to cross-examination about the prior statement ^[4]

There is no requirement that the prior consistent statement have been made under oath at a prior trial or hearing.

A form of prior consistent statement excepted from this rule is that of prior identification by the witness of another person in a lineup.

References

↑ Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 613
↑ In some U.S. jurisdictions, a prior inconsistent statement that is signed or adopted by a witness is admissible both for impeachment and substantive purposes. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Brady, 507 A.2d 66 (Pa. 1986). This approach has been rejected in the federal system.
↑ California Evidence Code §770
↑ Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 801 (d)(1)

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Friday, June 20, 2014. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.